I have an appreciation for Robert Baer. As far as thoroughly compromised individuals go, he's a decent read, and his observations and insights are not without merit. I prefer him to Chomsky, who is equally compromised (though I tend to agree with the Chompers more).
That written, his latest prediction has all the ring of truth one might associate with a Sy Hirsch narrative foreboding - that is, nil; they're good analysts and Hirsch has managed more than one surprising "scoop," but prescient Cassandras they are not.
Anyway, Baer's casting of the bones:
"...There is almost 'near certainty' that Netanyahu is 'planning an attack [on Iran] ... and it will probably be in September before the vote on a Palestinian state. And he's also hoping to draw the United States into the conflict,' Baer explained..."
Netanyahu is a venal, stupid, clownishly evil man. I have no doubt that for all the praise heaped on him by Obama, and in spite of the cover the last nine US Administrations have given Bibi and his predecessors, Netanyahu in fact despises Obama and would love nothing more than to actually be the tail that wags the American dog. (Any suggestion that Israel acts militarily without some US support and encouragement is risible, at best.)
Let's go on record, here: Bibi Netanyahu would love to force Obama to make a Hobson's choice - one which would likely cost him an election if he didn't support Israel, the other costing the US government even considerably more in credibility and cache if he did not.
The US military is fully committed to the defense of Israel.
Let's have no doubts on that.
But, is Netanyahu actually, certifiably insane?
Would he precipitate a global war (see Chinese and Russian security arrangements with Iran) in order to prevent the recognition of a laughably containable, easily conquered, utterly corrupt and compromised future Palestinian state.
I don't know. Seems to me, all things being equal, that this is what Baer thinks, in making such a bold prediction.
What say you, intrepid readers, friends and newly met strangers?
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
8 comments:
Agreed, but I hate to say it, 'cause my predictions suck.
Probably talking about Bibi bored in the Knesset, playing a game of Risk. Kamchatka!
Randal's take is true, and funny, so I'm going with that.
Like most idiot savages who enjoy vicarious murder, fuckstick Bibi would be a different human if he ever engaged in recreational pursuits that are athletic and competitive in nature.
Instead, though, he uses his competitive drives to compete with every other human on Earth, imagining such every other to be interested in wiping Jews from the face of the planet.
He is, laughably, the embodiment of the Superman comic book's hero. He thinks he's saving Judaism and Israel from the world.
What an asshole.
According to Ben Caspit of Israeli daily Maariv, Dagan's blasts at Israel's political leadership are significant not only because Mossad chiefs, in office or retired, traditionally have kept their lips sealed but also because Dagan is very conservative on security matters.
Caspit writes that Dagan is "one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here. ... When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."
True of our own leadership, as well.
~
It would be a welcome distraction stateside. Who's to say we won't let our hand on the leash slip, give a little bit of encouragement--like we did with Saddam re: Kuwait, only without the shock collar bit afterward?
That is, of course, subject to the criticism that it's Americentric. My analysis in school always ran a little bit toward that, but I felt I was reflecting the views of the statists.
Cuneyt,
I think it's insane, venal and incredible. I'm also of the opinion that people long accustomed to membership in aristocracies lose the ability to properly identify the likely outcomes of stupid decisions.
"people long accustomed to membership in aristocracies lose the ability to properly identify the likely outcomes of stupid decisions."
Well said, and completely supported by history.
Thanks, Will.
(My problem with progressives is that they fail to understand this. They think that the state which exists can be captured and made nice if only nice people with good hearts can gain the trust of the people long enough to tame a monster and turn it into a pet. By the time they've been in power long enough to have a good hold of the reins, they're part of the aristocracy and no longer have the capacity to see outcomes properly.
You kill the beast by killing the beast. Not by feeding it human treats until it learns to behave.)
Post a Comment